However, structuralist can counter such an argument by claiming that it was plain improvisation. This is because no one would have expected the separation of Jews to result in a mass extermination. Also, the German people did not fully support such policies; an example would be that during the Boycott of Jewish businesses and professional offices, many of the local people ignored the boycott and continued conducting businesses with Jewish people. Furthermore, the claim about only allowing Aryans to inherit farms for war purposes can be countered as Hitler took an official line of guaranteeing peace, not war to the German public.
The year 1935-6 is crucial to the debate of whether or not there was a gradual persecution of Jews. The Nuremberg Laws which said Jews would no longer be allowed to be citizens and cannot be involved in sexual relations with Aryans was seen as a big step. Intentionalist historians will claim that this was another escalation of the four process; the Jews were not more than ever physically isolated. However, the significant reduction in anti-Semitic activity during the 1936 Munich Olympics proves to be confusing.
On the other hand it is argued by structuralists that the Nuremberg was a spontaneous reaction to please party extremists after the SA leadership has been eliminated. Thus the Nuremberg Laws served the purpose of political manoeuvring instead of a process contributing to the Holocaust. Furthermore, the Munich Olympics which occurred a year after the Nuremberg Laws lead to a reduction in anti-Semitic activities. Again, it can be claimed that this was yet another improvisation on Hitler’s behalf as he was wary not to offend world opinion. This meant that the process of persecution was not gradual.
Kristallnacht in the year 1938 was perhaps the most radical persecution of Jews before the war started; it involves the use of violence on Jewish businesses and synagogues. Although the official claim was that Nazi was not involved, intentionalist will claim that the Nazis were the ones behind the scene provoking violence and intimidation against the Jews. This would be a step up from the separation process to the physical violence on the Jews.
This claim is attacked by structuralists who believe Kristallnacht was yet another spontaneous outburst. Firstly, it is claimed that Kristallnacht was simply a result of the killing of a German diplomat in Paris by a Jew. However, there is a more political reason behind this which involved internal disputes in the Nazi party. Joseph Goebbels had fallen out of favour with Hitler and in attempt to regain Hitler’s approval, Goebbels worked towards Hitler by supporting extreme action against the Jews; this was known as cumulative radicalisation.
As the war started in 1939, the persecution of the Jews escalated to a level that has never been seen. The Jews were now forced to move to ghettoes where conditions were appalling. Structuralists claim would be that such was a continuation of the process of persecuting Jews; first they were isolated by law but now physical isolation is taking place. In 1939, the Euthanasia Programme began which involved mercy killing of the mentally insane and groups which were part of the gemeinschaftfremd (aliens of the state). Structuralist will claim that the euthanasia programme was the beginning of the Holocaust as the techniques used would later be developed and refined. Two years on, Hitler’s “Final Solution of the Jewish Question” came to means of exterminating the Jewish Race. This would defiantly be argued to be a step up from violence on the Jews to the extermination by Structuralists.
However, intentionalist will counter the argument by stating that such radical means of physically exterminating the Jews instead of evacuating them was a result of the Second World War. The Nazis found that the “Jewish Problem” was now far greater as the countries they were in war with such as Poland, France and later Russia meant an even larger Jewish population for them to deal with. This meant that the Nazis had to spontaneously react to the sudden increase in number of Jews on their hands and came to conclusion for extermination. Furthermore, intentionalist will question the fact that events were out of order. For example, the identification of Jews was suppose to be before violent and extermination; however, Jews were forced to wear the Yellow Star of David as late as 1941. Again, intentionalist claims that events occur in response to changing circumstances other than following a planned sequence.
The support of the German people and acceptance of the persecution of the Jews is also a main factor in determination on whether or not persecution gradually increased. Intentionalist will claim that the people of Germany were always and have always been sympathetic towards policies against the Jews. They will claim that years before the Nazis came to power Hitler’s extreme ideologies were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which is also used as the party’s manifesto. Surely if Germans did not support the Nazi’s ideology on persecuting the “bloodsucking” Jewish race, they would not have cast their votes for Hitler. Furthermore, it is argued that there lacked strong opposition against the Nazi regime which meant the majority of Germans agreed with Hitler’s decisions including those involving the Jews.
The structuralists will state that the Germans voted the Nazis due in to the terrible economic status and their need for an identity. Therefore, they ignored the Nazi’s position on the Jews or treated it with minimal belief that the Nazi’s would one day take such actions against the Jews as stated in Mein Kampf. Furthermore, the reason for the lack of popular revolt was due to the fear of the Gestapo and SS.
To conclude, I believe the claim that the persecution of the Jews in Germany steadily intensified in the years 1933-42 has little accuracy. The Nazis was a populist party that came to power due to Hitler’s strong abilities in taking advantage of political opportunities; and as the governing party of a dictatorial regime they, as structuralist scholars such as Finkelstein’s suggest, conducted its actions with much improvisation. The nature of populism involves the ability to respond spontaneously to ever changing circumstances and it was a series of such events which lead the Nazis into conducting the Holocaust. Furthermore, historians often attempt to look for patterns in history whilst ignoring external factors and events as well as political issues and the struggle for power. Kristallnacht is an excellent example of such a mistake as it occurred for a very spontaneous and political reason instead of a strategic and well planned one.